The current US justice system is based around conviction of a crime (which usually requires having already committed it, or a VERY high bar for having intended to do so) in order to impose consequences (usually severe).
Or limitations on individuals' rights after conviction of the above.
There's no lesser standard of 'at higher risk to commit a crime', aside from a patchwork of short-duration city/state red-flag type laws, most of which are being challenged in court.
> Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently?
Access to NFA-controlled devices? [0]
E.g. a breach-loading potato gun
> I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window.
The Overton Window isn't a legal term: it's a PR/clickbait term.
The NRA has and currently opposes red-flag laws [1], even when constructed with due process procedures, because of its mistrust of any government firearm regulation.
If they instead switched their lobbying approach to productively crafting due process procedures that would allow targeting individuals with a history of threats, abuse, and violence, the rest of us could benefit from greater freedom to dangerous devices.
Instead, their tunnel vision on absolute freedom requires repeatedly casting a blind eye to inconvenient situations where disturbed individuals leverage that freedom to kill others.
Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes.
The NRA has fueled the exact opposite, by leveraging histrionics and fear mongering, not least for its own financial gain. Fuck em.
I would bet that the NRA will propose ammendments to any national red flag legislation introduced, just as they helped shape the 1968 legislation once it looked inevitable. That's all a part of the political game. Sure, the Overton Window is associated with some clickbait, but it's a real and valid concept in politics. This is why groups aren't going to volunteer to help implement things that are counter to their goals, be it the NRA or Everytown. Do you really think Everytown would support something like national reciprocity in exchange for red flag laws? No, as they are also a hardliner and playing the game.
"Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes."
So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome?
The NRA's blanket opposition to red flag laws is simply one example their willingness to ideologically fight even the simplest approach to a priori restrictions.
> So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome?
In my ideal world, the US would lean more heavily into universally-accessible but universally-required certification for access to dangerous devices.
Similar to motor vehicles, the default should be that no one has access to these things, but everyone has a right to obtain certification to have them.
As an example, that would look something like national "must issue" concealed weapons permits, but contingent on completing a non-trivial safety course and passing a background check (to ensure the individual isn't spending their free time talking about murdering people online / to their neighbors, appealable ofc).
Instead, we've spent ~60 years wringing our hands to try and square the circle between {everyone deserves access to dangerous things} and {some people are too irresponsible to have dangerous things}.
Why not just start with those facts and craft a viable system from there?
The way the current system is set up, it's supposed to weed people out before they get access to the more dangerous stuff. As juveniles, if they get convicted of certain offenses, they will be prohibited, at least until 35. We have eroded various aspects of this with selective enforcement, plea deals, and the promoting the continuation of childhood with delays in freedoms and responsibilities. Then for the of-age group we have stuff like conspiracy, voluntary/involuntary commitment, terroristic threats, and all manner of prohibiting offenses. There's certainly some room for improvement, but it hard to say what an effective improvement would be.
Freedom from gun violence for thousands of US children annually?
yes, there is nothing that is covered more in the united states and concerns more people than inner-city gang-related shootings… you are very funny and entertaining, I’ll give you that. now I gotta head over to some news media sites for continuing coverage of the mass shootings in south-side chicago…
that ship has sailed the moment United States of America collectively decided that it is acceptable to slaughter children in schools. when you make that decision as a society it is over.
bringing up inner city gun violence to a gun debate is more than funny to me :)
I'm not sure what you're getting at on this one. This individual faces potential incarceration. He is on bail and would be denied access to dangerous things... in theory. Of course he manufactured explosives, so it's not like he has to pass a background check to come into possession of them again.
"and we'd all be able to be afforded greater freedom if we did a better job in managing those particular people's access to lethal things."
Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently?
"Of course, the NRA has historically been the biggest lobbyist blocker to anything of that nature, given their paranoia that any legal government consequences will spiral into a panopticon."
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window. Speaking of gun regulations generally, it's not hard to understand why a pro-gun group would be against the types of additional regulations that are already present in other states that arguable do not improve safety or could even reduce it in legitimate use circumstances (eg hollowpoint bans, etc).